CapNCrunch wrote:But when I consider that recently a great master was able to teach even the highest teachings to 100's of fortunate students at the same time, in "public" as did KDL, I can't help but exclaim "Emaho!" and marvel at this display of compassion - even though I didn't have the Karma and DO to be there myself.

CC

See the reason why DC members are so closed to their Master ... ChNN is able to give Dzogchen DI teachings to a very large number of peoples.

Sönam

it is great but it would be interesting to know how many is getting it.

from Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche tribute to Urgyen Tulku Rinpoche:

Once I witnessed Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche give the pointing out instruction to a gathering of more than one thousand people in Taiwan. He still gave the real thing nakedly and directly, leaving nothing out. This must exemplify what they call the "expression of compassionate capacity," for he rose to the occasion out of the power of his realization. He said, "The oral instruction is like a candle: you can see while you hold it, and when you give it away you have no more light. But since all of you have taken the trouble to come here, expecting to hear me speak, I feel that I cannot refuse giving you the pointing-out instruction." Then he gave the instruction in coming face to face with your own nature. Even if the great Khyentse, Kongtrul or Longchenpa were doing so, it wouldn't surpass his instruction. Yet I later met only a few there who truly recognized their own nature.http://www.rangjung.com/authors/tribute ... npoche.htm

surely it is still great to receive the transmission anyway but isnt there a danger that we will kind of fake it or make some mistaken assumptions (specially if people feel it would be embarrassing to admit they have no clue what this natural state is) if there is no personal relationship with the teacher?

Disdaining the lower and unable to grasp the higher,talking of emptiness, such a person will neglect cause and effect,mouthing on about the view while in a state of self-deception.It would be better to concentrate on the gradual path.

CapNCrunch wrote:But when I consider that recently a great master was able to teach even the highest teachings to 100's of fortunate students at the same time, in "public" as did KDL, I can't help but exclaim "Emaho!" and marvel at this display of compassion - even though I didn't have the Karma and DO to be there myself.

CC

See the reason why DC members are so closed to their Master ... ChNN is able to give Dzogchen DI teachings to a very large number of peoples.

Sönam

it is great but it would be interesting to know how many is getting it.

I'm not sure it would be so interesting, but it happens that, depending on certain circumstances, you may have a good idea about it ... and I guess it's quite a good number, and that's why ChNN is a so great master.

surely it is still great to receive the transmission anyway but isnt there a danger that we will kind of fake it or make some mistaken assumptions (specially if people feel it would be embarrassing to admit they have no clue what this natural state is) if there is no personal relationship with the teacher?

Not sure it's a danger, just a fact ... some may remain in doubt, but having realized what's about one must admit that it is a very personal relationship with the teacher ... and the teaching.

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

I have never heard Nhamkaii Norbu Rinpoche speak againstanything that helps people. In fact, I have heard him say many times, "if it helps you, that's fantastic!"

It's important to not turn no religion into a religion.

There are so many ways we limit ourselves. Of course, it is easy to understand that it is safer to do things this way or that way. But life is not safe. Being born is not safe. Being born only results in dying. So, what we can do? We can do our best.

No disrespect, it's a nice sales pitch, but I am not buying it. No interested in religion anymore,Buddhist or otherwise, even packaged as "enlightenment" whatever that is.

But, different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes.

I am a bit shocked but I guess I have not been following your postings of closely enough of late.So in fact you see all those many years of learning Tibetan, studying the Sakya systems, translating those textsand investigating the abhidharmakosha etc. as a waste of time. You think you would have been better offjust resting in your natural state.OR Did it take that much to get to this point?

It is a bit discouraging to hear, somehow. For me personally, I couldn't imagine jumping into these formless meditations without a sort of gradual progression. I guess according to the Dzogchen presentation I am a dull faculty disciple. If I did think all the rest was unncessary, I wouldn't have bustedmy butt these last few years learning Tibetan and translation. I really feel what Geshe la teaches me nowis what will allow these formless things to make sense in the future.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

Bhusuku wrote:Yudron, would you mind to give a short summary about why he doesn't want to teach Dzogchen to the public? I ask 'cause I'm rather broke ATM (spent all my money for Dzogchen teachings, incidentally...), so I can't afford 25 bucks to hear why he won't teach Dzogchen in public....

I don't have my notes accessible right now. I wonder what the value of presenting these ideas to a forum of lovable group of guys who are currently loading their bazookas is.

I would be interested in a short summary too Yudron. I'll promise not to argue about it if that will convince you. I think teachers can have good reasons for teaching publicly as well as for not teaching publicly.

Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.- Shabkar

JKhedrup wrote:I am a bit shocked but I guess I have not been following your postings of closely enough of late.So in fact you see all those many years of learning Tibetan, studying the Sakya systems, translating those textsand investigating the abhidharmakosha etc. as a waste of time. You think you would have been better offjust resting in your natural state.OR Did it take that much to get to this point?

It is a bit discouraging to hear, somehow. For me personally, I couldn't imagine jumping into these formless meditations without a sort of gradual progression. I guess according to the Dzogchen presentation I am a dull faculty disciple. If I did think all the rest was unncessary, I wouldn't have bustedmy butt these last few years learning Tibetan and translation. I really feel what Geshe la teaches me nowis what will allow these formless things to make sense in the future.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I still enjoy reading texts like the Kosha and so on, but I am not longer under the il/delusion that liberation lies in that direction. Studying medieval philsophy, while entertaining, is a hobby.

As I said elsewhere, for Dzogchen all you really need to understand is the five poisons, the five elements, body, voice and mind, as well as the eight examples of illusion. That is about the extent of "abidharma" and madhyamaka you need to understand. You do not even need to understand the five aggregates, etc.

This dawned on me in April when I was teaching a course on Tibetan Medicine (which is all about the five elements and how they create, maintain and destroy the body) and realized that in all the thousands of pages of Tibetan texts I have translated and read of original Dzogchen material, apart from the five poisons, the vast portion of other topics in Abhidharma, the complex pirouettes of Abhisamaya, the scheme of the two truths and so on, is more or less completely absent in Dzogchen tantras apart from when they are criticizing these schemes or presenting the views of the different yānas.

Of course the Dzogchen tantras themselves deal with the doctrines of other yānas, mostly critically. And of course to be a translator of Dzogchen texts etc., yes, you need to study everything from the three vows all the way up the ladder -- especially if you want to become enmeshed in the texts of Longchenpa. So in answer to your other question, I am not sorry for having studied anything. All study can be taken with you into your next life. I am a "knowledge friendly anti-intellectual" these days.

To practice Dzogchen, you need to study very little. You just need to receive transmission from a qualified master (cannot underestimate the importance of that) and then go practice. If you think you need to study many things to understand Dzogchen then you are wasting your time. Why can I say this? Because many simple, uneducated people have acheived total liberation through Dzogchen teachings. Butchers, hunters, farmers, stone carvers, laborers of all kinds, people who did not spend years in retreat learning complicated practices and doctrines.

Dzogchen boils down to rigpa and marigpa i.e. knowledge or ignorance of the real condition of your body speech and mind which is created out of the five elements [yes mind too is a created out of the five elements].

Malcolm wrote:As I said elsewhere, for Dzogchen all you really need to understand is the five poisons, the five elements, body, voice and mind, as well as the eight examples of illusion. That is about the extent of "abidharma" and madhyamaka you need to understand. You do not even need to understand the five aggregates, etc.

M-la,

Any idea where we can find a comprehensive teaching on those subjects?

Malcolm wrote: This dawned on me in April when I was teaching a course on Tibetan Medicine (which is all about the five elements and how they create, maintain and destroy the body) and realized that in all the thousands of pages of Tibetan texts I have translated and read of original Dzogchen material, apart from the five poisons, the vast portion of other topics in Abhidharma, the complex pirouettes of Abhisamaya, the scheme of the two truths and so on, is more or less completely absent in Dzogchen tantras apart from when they are criticizing these schemes or presenting the views of the different yānas.

Loppon, I'm getting good! I placed this happening with the Sun in the last sector of Aries just before (a few days before) the transition into Taurus. When I look at the schedule it says you taught the course Arpil 20 and 21.

Malcolm wrote:To practice Dzogchen, you need to study very little. You just need to receive transmission from a qualified master (cannot underestimate the importance of that) and then go practice. If you think you need to study many things to understand Dzogchen then you are wasting your time. Why can I say this? Because many simple, uneducated people have acheived total liberation through Dzogchen teachings. Butchers, hunters, farmers, stone carvers, laborers of all kinds, people who did not spend years in retreat learning complicated practices and doctrines.

Dzogchen boils down to rigpa and marigpa i.e. knowledge or ignorance of the real condition of your body speech and mind which is created out of the five elements [yes mind too is a created out of the five elements].

I agree with you 100%, just not about is the most effective swift way to grow accustomed to rigpa.

Adamantine wrote:This is precisely the kind of snarky and cynical overgeneralization that reduces your credibility considerably.

I am not terribly worried about my credibility. That is other people's problem, not mine.

Fair enough! I really meant more the statements you are trying to make. If they were communicated in a different way that reflected a balanced perspective that reflected reality more accurately, I think the underlying ideas would be better received. I mean, the point of writing is communicating right? You don't find there to be any merit in the criticisms of this exaggerated and polemical habit of yours?

The whole point of such polemics can sometimes lay in restoring balance when a conversation has favored a contrary position for too long. There is no shortage of glowing accounts of Tibet as a Shangri-la. On the other hand there are very few public comments from committed practitioners that call into question the many shortcomings of Tibetan cultural and political modes. Making such forceful claims merely swings the conversation back into the center.

Frankly, sacred cow tipping as a way to undercut conditioning isn't very controversial for tantrikas of any stripe.

Karma Dorje wrote: There is no shortage of glowing accounts of Tibet as a Shangri-la.

I've certainly never heard any of these on this forum, -so I am not sure which windmills are being tilted at exactly.

I don't really agree that going from one distorted extreme to another is the way to find balance. That's not exactly a Buddhist approach. And with all due respect, I know Malcolm is no longer a Buddhist, but this is indeed a Buddhist forum.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

Karma Dorje wrote: There is no shortage of glowing accounts of Tibet as a Shangri-la.

I've certainly never heard any of these on this forum, -so I am not sure which windmills are being tilted at exactly.

This forum does not occur in a vacuum. In general, Westerners that first become involved with Tibetan Buddhism are quite naive to the depth and extent of the problems within Tibetan society. Tibetans actively promote a rosy view of their own culture. I don't begrudge them that, but I don't think anyone is served by a polyannaish approach to something as important as one's philosophy and spiritual practice.

Adamantine wrote:I don't really agree that going from one distorted extreme to another is the way to find balance. That's not exactly a Buddhist approach. And with all due respect, I know Malcolm is no longer a Buddhist, but this is indeed a Buddhist forum.

So you suggest that we should stay with the distorted extreme of an uncritical acceptance of those aspects of Tibetan culture that don't fit our modern condition?

Anyone who has been involved with Tibetan Buddhism and had their eyes open in the last 20 years knows that there are definite problems with the tulku system, sectarianims, sexism, intolerance for gender orientation, etc. in Tibetan society. I think we all agree that some of the best people on earth are Tibetans, but until recently the underlying problems were rarely talked about openly amongst Westerners. This is problematic, particularly for those that can end up taking advantage of by the unscrupulous.

In any case, I wasn't insinuating that Malcolm was being insincere and speaking just for effect.

Karma Dorje wrote:So you suggest that we should stay with the distorted extreme of an uncritical acceptance of those aspects of Tibetan culture that don't fit our modern condition? .

Listem KD, I never implied there were not problems, sure.. and they can be addressed.. I think it would be hard for anyone looking into TB on the web to miss encountering them. In reality, I think the problems are more predominant on the web along with plenty of gross exaggeration or misinformation such as the trimondis, american-buddha.com, etc. I really don't see the point in your responses here, to be honest. In response to the one point I could discern, I reiterate: I don't agree that going from one distorted extreme to another is the way to find balance.

If that was a way towards balance, certainly we'd have found perfect harmony on every level in this world already. Anyway, this is going way off-topic, there is no use in continuing this discussion. Malcolm can either take my suggestion or leave it.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

what do you mean by this? i.e. it's easier to pick-up the same topic again in your next life if you've studied it in this life?

Malcolm wrote: Butchers, hunters, farmers, stone carvers, laborers of all kinds, people who did not spend years in retreat learning complicated practices and doctrines.

Do you know of anywhere with more stories about people like that? I remember the story about the stone-carver in Crystal and the Way of Light but would be interested in knowing more -- any of Changchub Dorje's students in recent times for example?

Malcolm wrote:Oh, don't get me wrong, I still enjoy reading texts like the Kosha and so on, but I am not longer under the il/delusion that liberation lies in that direction. Studying medieval philsophy, while entertaining, is a hobby.

Because many simple, uneducated people have acheived total liberation through Dzogchen teachings. Butchers, hunters, farmers, stone carvers, laborers of all kinds

We westerners who practise Dzogchen are far more educated than tibetans. We have from our bird scientific hobbies. They are natural, easy and entertaining and even nearly efortless. We are not in Tibet where ordinary people were illiterate. You don't need cure us with tibetan herbs. Don't worry If you want establish the so-called pure Dzogchen, look elsewhere please.

Malcolm wrote:Oh, don't get me wrong, I still enjoy reading texts like the Kosha and so on, but I am not longer under the il/delusion that liberation lies in that direction. Studying medieval philsophy, while entertaining, is a hobby.

Because many simple, uneducated people have acheived total liberation through Dzogchen teachings. Butchers, hunters, farmers, stone carvers, laborers of all kinds

We westerners who practise Dzogchen are far more educated than tibetans. We have from our bird scientific hobbies. They are natural, easy and entertaining and even nearly efortless. We are not in Tibet where ordinary people were illiterate. You don't need cure us with tibetan herbs. Don't worry If you want establish the so-called pure Dzogchen, look elsewhere please.